Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Censorship

Submission + - The UK's very own DMCA; only worse. (pirateparty.org.uk)

Submitted by Grumbleduke
Grumbleduke writes: During today's debate in the UK's House of Lords on the much-criticised Digital Economy Bill the unpopular Clause 17 (that would have allowed the government to alter copyright law much more easily than it currently can) was voted out in favour of a DMCA-style take-down system for websites and ISPs. The new amendment (known as 120A) sets up a system whereby a copyright owner could force an ISP to block certain websites who allegedly host or link to infringing material or face being taken before the High Court (and made to pay the copyright owner's legal fees). This amendment was tabled by the Liberal Democrat party who had so far been seen as the defenders of the internet and reason and with the Conservative party supporting them passed by 165 to 140 votes. The UK's Pirate Party and Open Rights Group have both strongly criticised this new amendment.

The Bill is currently in Report stage in the House of Lords, and will then and will then have to pass through the (elected) House of Commons. The government has indicated its desire to push through the legislation before the upcoming election.
Security

Submission + - Friends let friends use... Firefox or Chrome? 2

Submitted by Anonymous Coward
An anonymous reader writes: To Firefox or to Chrome, that is the question. Most of you are probably the tech support guy/gal for your very non-techie, almost computer illiterate friends/relatives. You know they type: hopelessly wedded to IE on Windows XP/Vista/Win7; would gladly click on the "infect me" button on Facebook. After which you get a panicked call to help them get rid of this "Security Tool" that is trying to extort money from them. I just went through that scenario a few days ago. Well, not quite, the "infect me" part is a feeble attempt at humour, they have no idea how the malware came in.

So I am asked: what can I do to make sure this does not happen again? Hmmm... Bite my tongue. OK. This type of netizen will not get off Windows, so alternative OS's are out of the question. They are running anti-virus, not much good did it do. They can't afford the HW & SW costs of upgrading from XP to Win7. That leaves the "kick-me-in-the-behind" browser they are using. What can be done with that?

Well, Firefox with its multitide of security oriented add-ons comes to mind (noscript, ad-block, noflash, etc.). Except... it is way too intrusive for this type of users. They just want their browsers to work. The 'permit this, enable that' mode of operation is unacceptable.

What we are looking for then is a Windows-based browser that can stand on its own (default installation + common plug-ins) and be somewhat resilient to attack.

We can consider Google Chrome and it's sandbox security model, it looks awfully good. Firefox on the other hand has a pretty good but not exactly perfect security track record. And... no privilege separation; you own the browser and you own the filesystem (specially if the user is on XP as an administrator).

So, if you were to be asked... which browser can keep me safer? Given the constrains listed above, what would you tell your Windows-addicted friends? Use Firefox? Use Chrome? What the heck, somebody is bound to bring it up: use Opera? I am looking for an intelligent discussion on the security pros and cons of Chrome and Firefox, not a flame war. Let's see if the Slashdot community can deliver.

Submission + - ACTA internet chapter leaked - bad for everyone (boingboing.net)

Submitted by roju
roju writes: Cory Doctorow is reporting on a leaked copy of the "internet enforcement" portion of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). He describes it as reading like a "DMCA-plus" with provisions for third-party liability, digital locks, and "a duty to technology firms to shut down infringement where they have 'actual knowledge' that such is taking place." For example, this could mean legal responsibility shifting to Apple for customers copying mp3s onto their iPods.
Games

Submission + - Fantastic video game weapons vs their real-life eq (gamesradar.com)

Submitted by antdude
antdude writes: This two pages GamesRadar article compares the fantastic computer/video game weapons and their real-life equivalents — "There are certain things we just accept in video games. An overweight pipe technician can jump five times his own height. A first aid kit will instantly heal bullet wounds and replace lost blood. And any theoretical physics model can be cleanly packaged into a lightweight, handheld weapon with the minimum of fuss. But in certain cases, that last one isn't too far off the truth.

As guano loopy as most game weaponry is, some of it definitely isn't implausible. In fact some of it exists already. Kind of. Stick with us, and we'll talk you through the exciting/mortifying truth of what could be just around the technological corner..."

Seen on Blue's News.

Submission + - Left 4 Dead 2 refused classification (banned in Au (efa.org.au)

Submitted by jaxxa
jaxxa writes: Valve 's highly-anticipated sequel, Left 4 Dead 2, has just been refused classification in Australia.

I imagine that this will go to the Classification Review Board for appeal. This highlights the continued impact of a lack of an R18+ rating for computer games in Australia. If this decision stands, Australian adults will find it significantly more difficult to play the much anticipated zombie shooter sequel.

This follows from some reports from Gamespot.au earlier this week that little progress has been made on releasing the discussion paper for the introduction of an R18+ rating in Australia.

http://www.efa.org.au/2009/09/17/left-4-dead-2-refused-classification-banned-in-australia/
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/09/left-4-dead-2-banned-in-australia/
http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/102/1025650p1.html

Slashdot Top Deals

Trying to be happy is like trying to build a machine for which the only specification is that it should run noiselessly.

Close